|10-29-2012 03:13 PM|
Brett, the simple matter of fact is that DX10 (and 11... and 12 and 23) won't ever justify a exclusive operating system version until one of two things happen:
DirectX defines an HAL, contrary to what you seem to think. That's an API that stands between the graphics hardware and your operating system software. DirectX includes an HAL layer. Just like madmat demonstrated above DirectX10 had no code, nothing at all, that couldn't make it compatible to XP. Once and for all lets put an end to that myth propagated by Microsoft marketing syndicate.
Windows Vista introduced a new drivers model and moved sound rendering to software. These are the only two technical differences that had any effect on DirectX support. Because DirectX 10 needed to be backwards compatible, DirectX includes in fact support for DirectX 9. Because of this, there is absolutely no reason at all for DirectX 10 to not have supported its new effects under Windows XP.
Microsoft could have supported XP. It chose not to exactly to force a rapid adoption of the new operating system model introduced with Vista. Ironically... to just dump it a few years later when they introduced Windows 8.
|10-29-2012 11:11 AM|
FWIW, there are DX10 ports for XP out there in the wild but since M$ won't acknowledge that it actually does work on XP there are no drivers for DX10 in XP so it's pointless to bother with it.
|10-29-2012 10:52 AM|
No other reason than "other than Microsoft made it so"? Marfig, I'm surprised at you.
DX10 was MS's opportunity to completely break the old DX models, which had been in existence since before the very concept of shader cores and about 90% of the other things that a graphics card has on it today. Windows Vista radically redefined the HAL, and was a good time to implement such a drastic change. Re-coding it to go back to the way XP interacted would hardly be a trivial undertaking and wasting that effort supporting a nearly 10 year old OS at that point simply because people didn't want to move would be a waste of resources.
You act like the move to Vista was a simple step from XP (Win7-Win8 is much, much more streamlined, and Vista-Win7 was as well - the HAL has not substantially changed) when in reality part of why it was such a bear was that it was truly a new design for MS from the ground up...they got a lot wrong, but the heart was in the right place, and Win7 was proof of that.
Forcing users to upgrade to win8 from win7 would require a product obsolescence that would put MS in the doghouse for a ridiculous timespan. It's true that many people will probably give this version a pass, but I'm tired of hearing people say "Look what they did with DX10 to try and sell Vista!" You're a programmer, you know better!!!!
|10-27-2012 04:27 PM|
Welcome to the forums, Hood6558
Fortunately for all of us DirectX 10 got a rather lukewarm reception by developers and never amounted to much anything. Still, a few games shipped with it that sported new effects that couldn't be fully duplicated when the game reverted back to 9.0c on XP machines.
The point is, Microsoft could nudge everyone into Windows 8 by simply developing new versions of their frameworks as exclusives of the new operating system. I don't think the situation with Windows 7 demands such drastic actions, thank goodness. Windows XP was a massive achievement by Microsoft. Probably their most popular operating system to date and loved by everyone. They had to try anything to get rid of it. They failed too. That's in fact the operating system we will be seeing everywhere for many many years to come.
|10-27-2012 04:03 PM|
Cheers for the info!
Second, I totally agree with some of your points. As mentioned in the article, I've obviously come to a point where I can take the good with the bad, and ultimately end up preferring the OS, but I can totally understand why some wouldn't bother.
|10-26-2012 09:46 PM|
Windows 8 for Ages 8-12 (May contain choking hazard!)
Seriously, Microsoft? In order to rope in the non-technical and semi-literate youth of today, the rest of us are supposed to turn off our brains and blindly accept an O.S. that has fewer configuration options than it's predecessor, and forces several bad choices on the poor schmuck who was foolish enough to "upgrade". Is this an effort to tap into those markets (those too stupid to run a PC) by disguising it as a cell phone or tablet? And if so, who really cares? We still have Win 7 - it's not like they're taking that away - and enthusiast desktop components are getting better and cheaper every day. Those of us who build our own systems are not affected at all, and development of Win 7 applications and drivers will continue for years, probably way past the demise of Windows H8 (typographical pun intended). So fellow haters (and fanboys too), let the jokes and anecdotes begin, because Win 8 should be a rich source of humor for years, just as we ridiculed Vista losers in years past. Me, I got along fine with XP, fell in love with 7, and so far abhor Windows 8, so I have nothing against MSFT per se. I understand why they have to diversify and pick a direction for their main push (to stay alive), and I'm not mad at all about it. But I will continue to poke fun and talk s**t about them because it's fun and top dogs should expect to be challenged.
|10-26-2012 03:07 PM|
Hey Rob. Been using and testing win8 for quite a while @ my company and pretty much agree with all your points.
However for your section
"Start Screen: Killing Modern UI apps is unintuitive"
The fastest way to kill a metro app is to bring your mouse to the very top, a hand will appear and then drag it down to the very bottom.
To view what apps may still be running you can point to the top left while on desktop, right click and close them as well. Or you can also use the snap as you mentioned.
But yeah the main issue is that I did not know these from the get go which is a failure on MS' part in making things intuitive.
|10-26-2012 12:42 AM|
I didn't say outdated, I said dated. It essentially looks like Vista which is a 6 year old OS. Compared to newer Linux builds and OS-X versions which are slicker. The UI on those are still practical, just a bit more polished.
8 just looks like a lazy OS, everything all over the screen when you're in the metro start menu just looks sloppy. If I wanted crap all over my desktop I'd just enable desktop icons and have shortcuts on there. I just don't like having to switch from the desktop to a clumsy looking pile of icons that I have to decipher. The traditional start menu is organized more efficiently.
|10-25-2012 04:33 PM|
There's nothing outdated about Windows 7. Unless we want to start believing the Microsoft marketing pitch that says an Operating System launched 3 years ago and hailed as the best yet, is today a piece of crap incapable of dealing with current software and after all that was said is in fact very difficult to use by kids and grannies.
By that account we should start immediately believing that Windows 8 is a piece of crap incapable of dealing with software and very difficult to use by kids and grannies. Because you know what they will say about Windows 9.
Unless someone reminds me of the fact, I don't seem to recall any software revolution happening in the meantime that completely changed the way programs look and behave. They are the same as they were. The Chrome browser is pretty much unchanged, games didn't take on a new dimension, Adobe still makes the same stuff.
Matter of fact Windows 7 is a capable operating system if there ever has one. And yet, here we are again discussing the non essential. Getting distracted by user interface changes is the best service we can make to Microsoft and its years of lack of technological innovation on fields that should be a whole lot more important to the advancement of how we use our computers. By pitching the UI as the most important aspect of an operating system, Microsoft is putting us all to sleep.
What's been Microsoft biggest Technological innovations of the past 20 years? NTFS and to some extent UAC/UIPI. The first a true innovation, the second a copy of the security measures designed by other operating systems some 30 years ago. I'm being dishonest? Try it. Find me something truly technologically revolutionary about Microsoft Windows since Windows NT.
And yet we have been promised many. None delivered. Anyone remembers WinFS during the development stages of Windows Vista?
Instead since Windows XP we have been constantly given a new face to the same technological backbone. And to makes us go silent over the lack of true advancement on the field of operating system technology, we are told its faster and easier to use.
Let's be clear about something here: Microsoft stock options have been on the flat for a good 4 or 5 years now (I think 5 should be about right). They complain people don't understand the great innovations to Microsoft products, while companies like Apple seem to skyrocket on the stock market. Well, Microsoft may fool the casual consumer, but can't fool those with the real money and who treat that money with care. True innovation is what moves a company price. Microsoft has been a beach stuck whale. No one feels that's a good place to put their money in.
|10-25-2012 04:09 PM|
The increased performance and other niceties make up for it. I am not sure I'd recommend it if you had to pay the full upgrade price, but for the $40 upgrade or whatever is, it's hella worth it. If you are REALLY hung up on the Start screen, you're going to avoid it even if it was $0, so there's no debate in that.
|10-25-2012 04:05 PM|
|10-25-2012 02:15 PM|
After reading your review of the cons I can't see how you could still like it. Yeah, it's faster than 7 and has a smaller footprint due to being designed to run on lower spec mobile machines but speed and light weight aren't everything. Look at the Lamborghini Countach. Insanely fast, extremely light (for it's day) but about as practical as a swimming pool filled with sharks with freaking lasers on their heads.
To me, 8 is the software version of the Countach. Only instead of it killing you if you're not careful, it'll make you want to kill your computer. 7 is more like a practical family sedan. It's a bit dated looking, a bit flabby and not the fastest thing out there but it gets the job done well and it's comfortable doing it. And at the end of the day you're not left feeling like you had to fight it to get what you needed to do done.
|10-25-2012 12:54 PM|
No comments all day, and then three within the span of one minute. Not bad!
I agree totally with you guys. Despite all of the "hate" I have in this article, I still prefer to stick with Windows 8. I do feel like I'm inching towards replacing the Start screen with the old-fashioned menu, though. But it's really hard to say. I haven't been going in there too often to begin with, as the apps I access most often are right on my taskbar. We'll see...
|10-25-2012 12:36 PM|
|10-25-2012 12:36 PM|
Can't wait to see what you found good that made you actually like Windows 8. Eagerly awaiting for that second article. Because unless you found a way for it to give money from the DVD tray, I don't know what can possible be there that nullifies what I just read.
However, as a non desktop operating system meant for non-productive environments like tablets or smartphones there's very little I read I didn't like. Windows 8 really seems like Microsoft finally came up with a credible alternative to current tablet operating systems.
The problem is however they only gave us that. Windows is dead, according to Microsoft. What's fundamentally wrong about that philosophy is that instead of making one operating system that can behave as two different operating systems, they made an operating system that only behaves as a tablet operating system. So, trusting that Microsoft executive words, Microsoft failed in their objectives.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|